Posts by Jonathan Drake

32

The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees

by adjusted knowledge in

jw
friends

it is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.

the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.

33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake: "There is a significant different between these two events. In numbers the man purposely went out to work, and did work - he broke the sabbath."

And that justifies the execution? Such a 'god' is exactly what inspires dictatorial hearts like that of the Jehovah's Witness governing body.

It was not the work he was put to death for, it was the flagrant disrespect toward God's law. In a world where a benevolent almighty being has taken your entire family and friends through a miraculous parting of a sea, fed you miraculously, punished the Egyptians miraculously in very dramatic ways? Hypothetically, you're in this situation and you saw all of this (which this man would have), and that God tells you not to do any work on one particular day, but to use that day for reflection. Would you listen?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

In a book by Larry Hurtado which I'm currently reading he demonstrates why the hellenization of Jewish culture did not affect the view of Christ as God.

There are far too many things missing, and several facts. As an example, the Jewish culture was emphatically monotheistic. The Christian movement was persecuted very much for their apparent reverence for Christ alongside God because the Jews saw this as a gross blaspheme to God.

What was accomplished by the Christian movement is very significant. The movement first went to only Jews, and managed to convert them by the thousands. These were people who were devoutly monotheistic, and they knew the precarious position they put themselves in by accepting Christianity in the face of the Jewish religious leaders. They could have been charged with blasphemy like Stephen was - and stoned. But despite this they accepted Jesus, and did so all the while MAINTAINING their monotheism. They didn't view Christ as almighty God, they knew the difference. But they did reverence him along with God. anyway the point is, this development can owe no debt to the surrounding nations - it developed on its own merits.

Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem. So the source was always Jerusalem, and Jewish culture - it was never affected by the gentile mind of emperor worship.

Another point of fact is to suggest a cause and effect from the gentile nations necessitates that it not stop with just emperor worship. Why not include idols? But they never did this, not until well after Constantine. In fact, the Christians were persecuted by the gentile nations because they thought they were atheists since they had no idols anywhere, no gods to be found.

So it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny to suggest that the surrounding cultures were why any of it happened. Not only the bible, but also archeological finds suggest otherwise. Such as locations of Christian worship where only pictures of Old Testament prophets are found but no idols, which as I pointed out if they were going to accept emporer worship why not idolatry too?

anyway, I've typed way too much here.

8

Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?

by StarTrekAngel in

before i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.

a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.

compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?

Jonathan Drake

The problem the watchtower has, and the error being made here, is that they don't see the difference between the mosaic law and the Ten Commandments. They are two different things.

The law from God, the ten commamdments, was perfect. It was something no man could adhere to as one of the commamdments was to not covet - something everyone does at one time or another. It was a law from God.

The Mosaic law on the other hand was MOSES covenant as the Christ (anointed one) with the Israelites. This was the covenant which Jesus undid. Being the messiah he was a Christ (anointed one) with much more authority than Moses. So he replaced Moses covenant with his own, but did not undue the Ten Commandments. He did however fulfill the Ten Commandments, which only he could do - perfect man fulfilled perfect law and replaced the faulty covenant (mosaic law) referenced in Heb 8:7.

EDIT: actually I should amend something. I guess there is technically no error here - scripturally yes, the mosaic law/covenant was imperfect and faulty.

32

The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees

by adjusted knowledge in

jw
friends

it is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.

the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.

33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.

Jonathan Drake

There is a significant different between these two events. In numbers the man purposely went out to work, and did work - he broke the sabbath.

In Matthew the disciples we're just moseying along picking off heads of stalks of wheat and munching on them. They werent out their harvesting the field or something. It's more like you walking along munching on one of those little cans of Pringles or something

There is a pretty significsnt difference here. And this shows how insane the Pharisees rules had become. They considered the disciples actions "work" and it was not. They also had a rule for people that they should wash their hands up to the elbow before a meal, just washing your hands wasn't enough. The Pharisees were out of control, and there was a hug difference between the man chopping wood and the disciples picking grain heads.

I do see how it can LOOK like a contradiction though, it's a good find.

26

The Man Who Interviewed the Apostles

by TerryWalstrom in

meet papias.

if you had lived in the time of the living apostles of jesus would you have personally investigated stories about.

or, would you simply read whatever was written instead?.

Jonathan Drake

Also addressing the comment about matt 28. To say he didn't say that is an assumption without proof. We can say it's possible, but we'll never know for sure any more than we'll know for sure any of it happened.

The argument can therefore be made that the disciples may have thought he meant the Jews all over the diaspora who had moved and settled abroad - of which there were a great many. It is, actually, very probable this is what they thought and the reason why there was some descention about whether he meant this or if he meant Gentiles. This explains why when talking to Cornelias in acts 20 (it might be 19...?) Peter exclaims, "NOW I see that God is not impartial..." (Emphasis added), because until that point he was unconvinced that christs commission to them was about Gentiles and not just Jews all over the Roman Empire and settled in other lands abroad.

26

The Man Who Interviewed the Apostles

by TerryWalstrom in

meet papias.

if you had lived in the time of the living apostles of jesus would you have personally investigated stories about.

or, would you simply read whatever was written instead?.

Jonathan Drake

@opusdei & Smiddy

knowledge of the culture accounts for that discrepancy. Passover was celebrated as the festival of unleavened bread, and was a seven day observance. The first day and last days were the most special, but here is where it gets confusing for us looking back: technically, the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover) began on the 14th after dusk. I can look that up for you all if you need, I have a reference I'd need to find in a book I have about the Jewish culture.

So that is why if you look in the accounts of Matthew and mark, it'll say it began on the first day of the festival of unleavened bread. This is not the same as Passover, but was the day the Passover sacrifice was "customarily" offered. Luke 22:21 explains this day was CALLED Passover, but it wasn't actually Passover. Not until dusk, at which point the next day begins.

also, technically John doesn't say they observed the meal the day before, it says Christ knew the day before "the festival" of the Passover - not the day before Passover (John 13:1). Whereas Matt 26:2 shows Jesus saying "two days from now IS PASSOVER". The difference here is this: the festival began on the 14th, the Passover sacrifice was offered, and families prepared to celebrate the Passover after dusk (which according to the Jewish calendar was the beginning of the next day. The 15th, which was Passover). So where matthew wrote Christ saying Passover was in two days would have been Nisan 13th. Where John wrote that he knew the day before the festival would have been a reference to the 13th, saying that he knew (compare matt 26:2), but john was not saying they observed Passover on a different day, only that Jesus knew before Passover that his "hour had come."

I know now that's confusing but it's true.

26

The Man Who Interviewed the Apostles

by TerryWalstrom in

meet papias.

if you had lived in the time of the living apostles of jesus would you have personally investigated stories about.

or, would you simply read whatever was written instead?.

Jonathan Drake

I have never trusted, and will never trust, the catholic church. Ever.

(No offense to any catholics)

19

Interesting statement made by CO. Is this new?

by stillin in

in his first talk of the week the co mentioned that people don't get df'd for joining the military or registering to vote because they are already gone, as compared with smoking secretly, which would merit df'ing.. i have been toying around with registering to vote in the next election (us) so this intrigues me..

Jonathan Drake

No that's always been. Joining the military is considered an act of disassociation. it happened to my family member. Even though it's effectively the same, being disassociated and being disfellowshipped are two different things.

17

Rev 17:9 - Thoughts?

by leaving_quietly in

rev 17:9 describes something about the "woman", the harlot, babylon the great:.

here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: the seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top.

and there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.. i was dreaming about this verse last night, so i thought i'd look it up.

Jonathan Drake

@londonagain

there are other problems with this theory however, and I apologize for assuming you came up with it btw.

the theory asserts Babylon the great was Jerusalem. But in revelation, the harlot known as babylon the great has a kingdom over the Kings of the earth. The Jews, and Jerusalem, have never had such a domination in history. They were looked down on, to the point of being despised, by many roman officials and officers. Jerusalem, and in fact all of Israel, has never had a dominion over anyone but itself.

So, aside from the timeline issue, Jerusalem doesn't at all fit the discription.

17

Rev 17:9 - Thoughts?

by leaving_quietly in

rev 17:9 describes something about the "woman", the harlot, babylon the great:.

here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: the seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top.

and there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.. i was dreaming about this verse last night, so i thought i'd look it up.

Jonathan Drake

@Londo

except that Nero died in 68, and revelation is largely agreed to have been written after 70. So that puts a rather large hole in your theory.